D&D 5E The Printers Can't Handle WotC's One D&D Print Runs!

One of the reasons why the three new core rulebooks next year will not be released together is because D&D is such a juggernaut that the printers can't actually handle the size of the print runs!

Jeremy Crawford told Polygon "Our print runs are pretty darn big and printers are telling us you can’t give us these three books at the same time.” And Chris Perkins added that "The print runs we’re talking about are massive. That’s been not only true of the core books, but also Tasha’s Cauldron. It’s what we call a high-end problem."

 

[Micah Sweet]

That depends if we're talking about volume, quality or consistency.

I realise that you're a fan of TSR-era lore. I am too. I have no problem agreeing that measured only by quantity, it is hard to fault. However, once we stray into a discussion of quality or consistency, the lore produced during TSR's time at the helm is hardly without its own problems.

In terms of quality and consistency, 1e/2e era lore is a real mixed bag. There are many products (and product lines) with deeply problematic lore: lore that is misogynist or racist by today's standards, lore that is plain silly (the Dragonlance product Gnomes-100, Dragons-0 has an encounter with an ocean-dwelling kraken inside Mount Nevermind that requires the use of a nearby steam-powered laser to resolve) and a vast quantity of lore that contradicts other lore. Sure, TSR did make some effort to try to avoid outright contradictions, but given the sheer volume of their output, it isn't hard to find contradictions when researching almost any topic.

I enjoy my library of TSR products for what it is. But I certainly don't share your view that it is in any way a flawless body of lore.

I don't think anyone said flawless. Better on the whole than any edition since? By miles in my opinion.

 

[Echohawk]

I don't think anyone said flawless. Better on the whole than any edition since? By miles in my opinion.

More copious than any other edition, definitely. Better? I'm not sure about that and, again, I am a fan of TSR-lore.

If I want lore that details as much of a campaign setting as possible. I'll look to the 1e/2e products on my shelves.

If I want Forgotten Realms lore that consolidates 1e/2e material and irons out some of the inconsistencies, I'll reach for my 3e books.

If I want lore that I can mine for ideas for my own settings, the run of 4e books would probably be my first port of call. There are some truly inspiring concepts in many of those tomes.

If I want a book that I can refer new players to to get a high-level feel for a setting without overwhelming them, 5e does this very well.

So my "better" depends entirely on what I'm seeking from the body of lore.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Another perpective, this one that true reason for the physical price increase is to push folks to go digital.

 

[Micah Sweet]

More copious than any other edition, definitely. Better? I'm not sure about that and, again, I am a fan of TSR-lore.

If I want lore that details as much of a campaign setting as possible. I'll look to the 1e/2e products on my shelves.

If I want Forgotten Realms lore that consolidates 1e/2e material and irons out some of the inconsistencies, I'll reach for my 3e books.

If I want lore that I can mine for ideas for my own settings, the run of 4e books would probably be my first port of call. There are some truly inspiring concepts in many of those tomes.

If I want a book that I can refer new players to to get a high-level feel for a setting without overwhelming them, 5e does this very well.

So my "better" depends entirely on what I'm seeking from the body of lore.

My better is based on how much material I have to work with and draw inspiration from. TSR wins that every time, but other editions have different material that also can be drawn upon and has value. I also really like settings, and nothing past 3e (which in most cases continues and further expands TSR lore) in that arena is worth bothering with to me for the most part, especially as how it reads to new players is not a concern of mine.

 

[Umbran]

So my "better" depends entirely on what I'm seeking from the body of lore.

Yes. The question, "Which is better?" is really incomplete. In full the question probably ought to be, "Which is better for particular purpose X?"

 

[Parmandur]

Another perpective, this one that true reason for the physical price increase is to push folks to go digital.

No, it's because of inflation. Literally everything is more expensive as inflation works, and that goes for companies and logistics.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Another perpective, this one that true reason for the physical price increase is to push folks to go digital.

I expect that has a lot to do with it, especially as they are surprisingly ambivalent about people actually buying the new physical books. If instead people are using D&DB, they are pushed hard into "upgrading" to the new material.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I don't think anyone said flawless. Better on the whole than any edition since? By miles in my opinion.

Mine as well, 3.5e wasn't bad however, and even 4e at least put more effort into their alt lore then 5e puts into lore period,like 4e at least knew to seperate setting books from the adventures, instead of trying to do everything with one book.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No, it's because of inflation. Literally everything is more expensive as inflation works, and that goes for companies and logistics.

Personally, I tell the cashier every time I go to the Five and Dime that more than a quarter for a candy bar is price gouging.

I know this because I saw a youtube video that told me that BigCandy is trying to get me to move to digital candy. And youtube never lies, which is why I make sure to SMASH that subscribe button whenever someone posts something that angers my blood.

 

[bedir than]

, especially as they are surprisingly ambivalent about people actually buying the new physical books

How does a company actively marketing new books look ambivalent?